Case Title | Sri Lakshmi Silvers vs The State Tax Officer, |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY |
Citation | 2024 (03) GSTPanacea 38 HC Madras W. P.N o.6196 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.6864 & 6866 of 2024 |
Judgment Date | 11-March-2024 |
The petitioner, a registered entity under the GST laws, challenged an assessment order dated 11.07.2023, citing violations of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with relevant circulars concerning the procedure for handling discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The petitioner operates in the base metals supply business and had claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for supplies received during the 2019-20 assessment year.
In their challenge, the petitioner argued that the assessment order was flawed due to procedural irregularities and a failure to follow established protocols outlined in circulars. Specifically, they contended that discrepancies between their GSTR-3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR-2A returns were not addressed in accordance with prescribed guidelines.
The crux of the petitioner’s argument rests on the breach of principles of natural justice, asserting that they were not afforded a fair opportunity to present their case or contest any discrepancies prior to the issuance of the assessment order. Additionally, they argued that the assessing authority failed to adhere to the circulars governing the procedure for resolving inconsistencies between different GST returns.
As a registered entity engaged in business activities, the petitioner relied on the proper application of GST laws and procedures to ensure fair and accurate assessments of their tax liabilities. However, the alleged lapses in adhering to procedural guidelines raised concerns regarding the validity and fairness of the assessment order issued against them.
Overall, the petitioner’s challenge to the assessment order reflects broader issues concerning procedural fairness, adherence to regulatory frameworks, and the need for clarity and consistency in the application of GST laws. The outcome of this challenge could have implications not only for the petitioner but also for the wider GST regulatory framework and its enforcement mechanisms.
The case at hand involves a petitioner who received an intimation and show cause notice regarding an assessment order related to GST ASMT-10. The petitioner, however, was unaware of these notices as they relied entirely on their accountant, who failed to inform them. The assessment order was issued based on this lack of response.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to contest the tax demand and that procedures outlined in circulars by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs were not followed regarding the disparity between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for a remand.
The learned Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the respondent. It was noted that the tax demand pertained to differences between the ITC claimed in the GSTR-3B return and that reflected in the auto-populated GSTR-2A returns. However, there was no indication of the transactions being non-genuine in the assessment order. The petitioner’s counsel argued that relevant circulars were not adhered to in this regard.
In light of these arguments, the court decided to quash the impugned assessment order, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. The petitioner was also granted permission to file a reply to the show cause notice within this period. Upon receipt of the reply and satisfaction that 10% of the disputed tax demand was remitted, the assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a fresh assessment order within two months.
As a result, the Writ Petition (W.P.No.6196 of 2024) was disposed of on the mentioned terms, with no costs incurred. Consequently, related Writ Miscellaneous Petitions (W.M.P.Nos.6864 and 6866 of 2024) were closed.
Download Pdf:
Sri Lakshmi Silvers
For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court
Read Another Case law:
GST Case Law